The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Atheism v. Christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,105 times Debate No: 30847
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.

Resolved: Atheism is more probable than Christianity.

For purposes of this debate, we will be taking a literalistic approach to the Bible and will be using a Calvanistic doctrine of the Bible.

If my opponent disagrees or would like to add any clarifications, please do so in round 1.


(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
(5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss.


(1) Acceptance
(2) Opening Statement ONLY
(3) Rebuttal
(4) Rebuttal
(5) Closing

Other notes:

(1) 72 hours to argue;
(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time.
(3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;
(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.


Thanks for providing this topic, Pro. As I am not a Christian, or even religious in any sense, I'm anticipating a unique and lively exchange.

I accept the challenge, and I look forward to what will surely be a fun, stimulating debate.
Debate Round No. 1


In my opening statement, I will explain how we can be justified in believing that god(s) do(es) not exist. I would like to thank and muted for making this debate possible.

It should be noted that there are two types of atheological arguments that I shall be using in this debate: (1) The first is called logical arguments - these attempt to show that the concept of God is self-contradictory or logically inconsistent with known facts; (2) The second is called evidential arguments - these arguments attempt to show that the known facts are inconsistent and incompatible with the Christian God. These will include Biblical errors, contradictions, etc.

Pro 1: The Argument from Non-Cognitivism.

The following syllogism is taken from Magic8000’s debate1:

  1. There are three attributes of existents which concern us particularly, these being:
    1. Primary Attributes - The basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existent’s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified
    2. Secondary Attributes - Character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise
    3. Relational Attributes – What we associate with the character. For example, in the case of President Obama, the fact that he is the President of the United States is an example of a relational attribute.
  1. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existent’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
  2. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
  3. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
  4. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
  5. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)
  6. Therefore, the god concept is invalid.

When someone says to you, "God exists", how do you normally respond? For most atheists, the answer is simply "prove it." However, this is a bit premature. Before we can get into whether or not God exists, we must first know what a God is. Indeed, many intellectuals have discussed and debated the subject as to what God is throughout history. The fact remains that from its original form, the ANC has stood as one of the most significant threats to the Christian/Theist worldview.

For example, consider the following dialogue2:

Mr. Jones: “An unie exists.”

Mr. White: “Prove it.”

Mr. Jones: “It has rained for three consecutive days—that is my proof.”

If this exchange seems less than satisfactory, much of the blame lies with Mr. White: his demand for proof was premature. Mr. Jones has not specified what an “unie” is; until and unless he does so, “unie” is nothing but a meaningless sound, and Mr. Jones is uttering nonsense. As W. T. Blackstone puts it:

Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faithis beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request forthe meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge.”


Until my opponent specifies what a God is, the god-concept is invalid and “god” is just an utterly meaningless sound.

Pro 2: Incoherence of God’s Attributes

The following argument is tied in nicely with the last. Theists have attempted to provide us with a list of what God is. According to the 1968 National Catholic Almanac, God is3:

[A]lmighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true.

As you noticed, these answer the secondary attribute, but fail to answer the primary attribute. Moreover, and more important, the above definition is incoherent. If God is incomprehensible and ineffable, how can the other attributes of God be known if he can neither be understood nor described?

  1. Anything with contradictory attributes cannot exist.
  2. God has contradictory attributes
  3. Therefore, God cannot exist.

Pro 3: Failed Prophecies in the Bible

According Deuteronomy 18:21-22, if a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and that prophecy fails then he is obviously a false prophet. There are prophecies within the Bible that have failed.


Failed Prophecy on Tyre

Ezekiel 26:7-14, “For thus says the Lord: "Behold I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a hosts of many soldiers. He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a seige wall against you. He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers...With the hoofs os his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword and your mighty pillar will fall to the ground...they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses... I will make you a bare shall never be rebuilt, for I have spoken," says the Lord God.”

The whole passage prophesied the attack and destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar. However, none of this happened. After a long siege of 13 years, Nebuchadnezzar lifted his siege and compromised with the people of Tyre. Thus, king Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre as Ezekiel said that it would.4

Ezekiel later admitted his error:

Ezekiel 29:17-20, ...the Lord God came to me: “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made his army labour hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labour that he had performed against it...”

I rest my case.

  2. Smith, G. “Atheism: The Case Against God
  3. 1968 National Catholic Almanac, edited by Felician A. Foy, O. F. M. (Paterson: St. Anthony’s Guild, 1968), p. 360.


St.Alphonzo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


St.Alphonzo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Vote pro!


St.Alphonzo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


St.Alphonzo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
"Statistically, I'm more likely to meet a Christian than an Atheist; ergo, Christianity is more probable (to be a given person's belief system) than Atheism"

Translation: I am more likely to meet someone who believes the reason for gravity made an appearance thousands of years ago in the middle east for some walking on water, Human sacrifice and resurrection, than a thinking person.
Posted by AlbinoBunny 4 years ago
How would you define 'lawyering'?
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
Statistically, I'm more likely to meet a Christian than an Atheist; ergo, Christianity is more probable (to be a given person's belief system) than Atheism.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
I was wondering why LK sounded different...
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
It's 'Calvinistic'.
Posted by FaR 4 years ago
Hi there
probability is a positivist idea you can not apply to philosophical or metaphysical questions, I believe what you meant was "Atheistic ontology (view of the world and historical events) is more plausible than Christianity's". I currently do consider myself a pantheist so I don't think I would be the best person to debate on this subject with you. Anyway good luck.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by unitedandy 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: tough call